Are Civil Liberties Necessary for High Technology? An Applied Analysis with Panel Cointegration Tests

Öz

This study provides an econometric analysis of the relationship between civil liberties and high-tech exports. It uses 13 years of data (2010-2022) for 103 countries. In the first plan, the arguments on the relationship between civil liberties and democracy and issues such as economic performance, technological development, and R&D investments are discussed, and the results of the studies in the literature are mentioned. The structure and sources of the data and variables are then highlighted. For civil liberties, the civil liberties index (CVL), which is calculated annually by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and is one of the sub-indices of the “Democracy Index,” was used. The high technology exports variable (HTEX) consists of the share of high technology exports in all manufacturing exports. In addition, the income per capita (GDPER) variable is used as a control variable in the study. Pedroni and Westerlund cointegration tests were used to test the null hypothesis “There is no relationship between civil liberties and high technology exports.” As a result of the analyses, it was found that there is a long-run relationship between civil liberties and high technology exports. According to the DOLS and FMOLS test results, a one-point increase in CVL increases HTEX by 0.92 and 1.02 points, respectively. In other words, it is concluded that the level of civil liberties in a country increases the export of high-tech products.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Civil Liberties
• High Technology Exports
• Panel Cointegration Tests

Yüksek Teknoloji İçin Sivil Özgürlükler Gerekli midir? Panel Eşbütünleşme Testleri ile Uygulamalı Bir Analiz

Öz

Çalışmada sivil özgürlükler ile yüksek teknoloji ihracatı arasındaki ilişki ekonometrik açıdan incelenmiştir. Bunun için 103 ülkeye ait 13 yıllık veri (2010-2022) kullanılmıştır. İlk planda, sivil özgürlükler ve demokrasi ile ekonomik performans, teknolojik gelişme ve AR-GE yatırımları gibi konular arasındaki ilişkiye dair ortaya atılan savlar tartışılmış ve literatürde yapılan çalışmaların sonuçlarına değinilmiştir. Ardından verilerin ve değişkenlerin yapısı ile kaynakları üzerinde durulmuştur. Sivil özgürlükler için, Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) tarafından yıllık olarak hesaplanan ve “Demokrasi Endeksinin” alt endekslerinden birisi olan sivil özgürlük endeksi (CVL) kullanılmıştır. Yüksek teknoloji ihracatı değişkeni (HTEX) ise tüm üretim ihracatı içerisinde yüksek teknoloji ihracatının payından oluşmaktadır. Ayrıca çalışmada kontrol değişkeni olarak kişi başına gelir (GDPER) değişkeni kullanılmıştır. “Sivil özgürlükler ve yüksek teknoloji ihracatı arasında ilişki yoktur” sıfır hipotezini test etmek için Pedroni ve Westerlund eşbütünleşme testleri kullanılmıştır. Yapılan analiz sonucunda, sivil özgürlükler ile yüksek teknoloji ihracatı arasında uzun dönemli ilişkinin varlığına rastlanılmıştır. DOLS ve FMOLS testi sonuçlarına göre CVL’de meydana gelen 1 puanlık artış, HTEX’i sırasıyla 0,92 ve 1,02 puan artırmaktadır. Yani nihai olarak bir ülkedeki sivil özgürlük düzeyinin yüksek teknolojili ürünlerin ihracatını artırdığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sivil Özgürlükler
• Yüksek Teknoloji İhracatı
• Panel Eşbütünleşme Testleri

Kaynakça

1. Adhikari, D., & Chen, Y. (2012). Energy consumption and economic growth: A panel cointegration analysis for developing countries. Review of Economics & Finance, 3(2), 68-80. https://ideas.repec.org/a/bap/journl/130206.html
2. Aghion, P., Alesina, A., & Trebbi, F. (2007). Democracy, Technology, and Growth. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. (No. 13180). https://doi.org/10.3386/w13180
3. Asteriou, D., & Hall, S. G. (2007). A modern approach using Eviews and microfit (revised edition). Macmillan New York.
4. Aydin, M. (2019). The effect of biomass energy consumption on economic growth in BRICS countries: A country-specific panel data analysis. Renewable Energy, 138, 620-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.001
5. Bova, R. (1997). Democracy and liberty: The cultural connection. Journal of Democracy, 8(1), 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1997.0016
6. Carlsson, M., Lyhagen, J., & Österholm, P. (2007). Testing for purchasing power parity in cointegrated panels (IMF Working Paper No. 07/287). International Monetary Fund. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1078792
7. Coccia, M. (2010). Democratization is the driving force for technological and economic change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 248-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.007
8. Coccia, M. (2020). Effects of the institutional change based on democratization on origin and diffusion of technological innovation (Working Paper CocciaLab n. 44/2020). CNR -- National Research Council of Italy. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3541572

9. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2022). Democracy index 2021. The China challange. The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/
10. De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600403
11. Gao, Y., Zang, L., Roth, A., & Wang, P. (2017). Does democracy cause innovation? An empirical test of the popper hypothesis. Research Policy, 46(7), 1272-1283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.014
12. Gerring, J., Bond, P., Barndt, W. T., & Moreno, C. (2005). Democracy and economic growth: A historical perspective. World Politics, 57(3), 323-364. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2006.0002
13. Gökmen, Y., & Turen, U. (2013). The determinants of high technology exports volume: A panel data analysis of EU-15 countries. International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 2(3), 217-232. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2326360
14. Hurtado, S. R. B., Tenesaca-Martínez, K., Torres-Diaz, V., Quito, B., Ojeda, C., & Ochoa-Moreno, S. (2024). Assessing the influence of GDP, globalization, civil liberties, and foreign direct investment on researchers in R&D per country: Dynamic Panel Cointegration Analysis for Latin American countries. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 100929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100929
15. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
16. Isham, J., Kaufmann, D., & Pritchett, L. H. (1997). Civil liberties, democracy, and the performance of government projects. The World Bank Economic Review, 11(2), 219-242. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/11.2.219
17. Kalymbetova, A., Zhetibayev, Z., Kambar, R., Ranov, Z., & Izatullayeva, B. (2021). The effect of oil prices on industrial production in oil-importing countries: panel cointegration test. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 11(1), 186-192. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.10439
18. Kao, C. & Chiang, M.-H. (2001). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data, B.H. Baltagi, T.B. Fomby & R. Carter Hill (Edt.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels (ss. 179-222). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15007-8
19. Knutsen, C. H. (2015). Why democracies outgrow autocracies in the long run: Civil liberties, information flows and technological change. Kyklos, 68(3), 357-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12087
20. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1), 653-670. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1653
21. Pedroni, P. (2001), Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels, B.H. Baltagi, T.B. Fomby & R. Carter Hill (Edt.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels (ss. 93-130). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15004-2
22. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20(3), 597-625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604203073
23. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
24. Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
25. Shaari, M. S., Majekodunmi, T. B., Sulong, A., Esquivias, M. A., & Yusoff, W. S. (2024). Examining the interplay between green technology, co2 emissions, and life expectancy in the asean-5 countries: insights from the panel FMOLS and DOLS approaches. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00706-4
26. StataCorp. (2023). Stata 18 Base Reference Manual. College Station, TX: Stata Press. https://www.stata.com/manuals/xtxtcointtest.pdf
27. Tran, Q. T. (2022). Democracy and corporate R&D investment. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(3), 465-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.06.013
28. Wang, Q. J., Feng, G. F., Wang, H. J., & Chang, C. P. (2021). The impacts of democracy on innovation: Revisited evidence. Technovation, 108, 102333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102333
29. Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474930500243019
30. Xie, P., & Huang, J. (2023). Financial expansion and economic performance: evaluating the role of research and development expenditures for China. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 36(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2137826
31. Yu, M. (2010). Trade, democracy, and the gravity equation. Journal of Development Economics, 91(2), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2009.07.004